Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:or rabbits, (Score -1) 274

by Obble (#38901255) Attached to: Aussies Could Use Elephants To Fight Invasive Species

Rabbits are a very bad idea. They were a great pest in Australia and New Zealand, they stripped clear alot of land. Then Australia got a rabbit virus which killed alot of rabbits. The NZ government band the import of the virus to kill the rabbits in NZ because they feared once it was loose it couldn't stop it killing the native birds. (no study was yet to carried out to test if it could jump spices) Then after about a month, the virus magically (air new zealand/quantus) jumped over the ditch (tasman sea) and then the rabbit plage was over in a few weeks. It was great for the framers and no native kiwis or birds died. NZ gov was a bit pissed off :-P

I like elephants idea, they wont go wild due to slow breeding, we already have cammles in the outback. and if they get too popular like the kangaroos we would soon see them in the meet section of Coles/Woolworths (local super markets).

Comment: Special Earth is center of galaxy (Score -1) 745

by Obble (#38326274) Attached to: Is the Earth Special?

We all know that distance galaxies are red shifted, but how many of you know they are quantization of the red shifts.

This means that the galaxies are placed at regular intervals of 2Myr in distance. That pattern can only been seen if we were at the center of the universe. If you move earth to 2Myrs in either direction then the pattern is not visible.

So the pattern suggest that Earth is in a unique position in a boundary based universe.
(Big Bang doesn't have boundarys due it a 3d surface on the 4d hypersphere, but I know someone will disagree with on me on that)

But the ultimate answer of "Is the earth special" is Yes, because it has me. (drum sounds :-) )
(thank you folks, I'll be here all day long)

Comment: Re:Phewww.... (Score -1) 1319

by Obble (#38257492) Attached to: Muslim Medical Students Boycott Darwin Lectures

I will try and debate with you, but from previous experience I'm pretty sure what will happen. It will get to a point where I will say, that doesn't exist any more, or that evolved away and we don't see it, and you'll say aha!, so you don't know it all, it was clearly god. :p

Yeah, most likly something like that will happen. I can assume neither one of us will change our minds/opinions on the subject matter. But I will continue because like a parable "Iron sharpens iron", with out someone (with knowledge) attacking what I "believe" I would find it more difficult to expand my mind for more understanding and knowledge. I find that when someone attacks what I believe I have motivation to defend it and therefor learn new things. (e.g. I will have to read up on Lipids)

But this disregards the fact that we don't need to know all the answers, we just need to use the simplest conclusion by extrapolating from known data.

I think you might be trying to refer to Occam's razor, where the theory requiring the least amount of assumptions is the preferred theory.

And god is not a simple conclusion because then we are just asking who created god.

Actually I always hear the opposite complain when "God" is "used to explain everything". Hence the "simple" solution.

To the argument of who created God, I believe is not a question which makes sense as you are asserting in the question a messurment of time into someone which exists outside of time. (E.g. if time was a 2D plane instead of viewed as a 1D line of past/present/future how you say how old you were?), hence by asking an entity which exists outside of time how old he is, how would you answer that?

Lets look at the theory of cause and effect. A "effect" has a cause. Hence the universe existence would have a "cause" (unless you are prescribing the steady state model). The "cause" can not have been made from any physical / energy source because you are then relying on something's own existence to explain how it came to being. Which violates the no creation of energy law of the universe.
Oh please dont try to say quantum fluctuation of virtual particles as that is one big cop out of an answer. (i.e. what created the energy again)
The "theory" which requires less assumptions is creation of a universe by an (super) intelligent being. The theory of the big bang requires many adhoc assumptions to explain each stage the BB when though. Occam's razor would favor a creationist.
(Read the book Dismantling the big bang for more details in that.)

I have studied some biochemistry in university, I know how complex a modern cell is. The first cell could easily have been a simple replicator inside a lipid membrane.

This is where the argument of where you would say "it doesn't exist anymore" would come in.
Please define what "simple" is when it comes to replicators.
Are you referring to crystal like structures or a fully blown dna reading machine?
Having a crystal like structure doesn't produce the machinery to replicate, it can self assemble into a organised shape predestined by it's chemical properties. Although these structures show highly ordered arrangements, but all they ever be are structures align to there chemical nature.
The simplest self replicating thing I've read about is an artificial self replicating hex like structure that was on slashdot about 2 months ago, which could replicate by heating the solution then cooling it down again. This needs many human interferences for it to be self replicating. E.g. the right sollution, and heating cycle. Again this artificial thing couldn't become more complex due it's shape being linked to it's chemical properties.

The replication from organic things comes from it's dna chain which it's assembly it not related to it chemical properties. For example the sentence: "To be or not to be", does not make any sense, all it is, is a collection of symbols stringed together, the shape of the letters give not relevance to the next symbol in the sentence nor to its ultimate meaning. It's only when a decoder it used (English) can we understand the sentence and get information out of it.

Hence the "simple" replication structure you are thinking of would be a crystal structure which can have order but not information, all they will ever be is crystal like in structure.

Lipids can naturally and spontaneously form cell like enclosures all on their own.

Ok, I believe you on this, (I am ignorant on whats Lipids are, short of a 1 minute read on Wikipedia) this is easily testable. (put Lipids together and see them clump together).

The organelles that we see inside the current cell could have been separate entities.

This statement is based on an assumption, you will need to show how functional sub structures can be created and then placed in the correct order and then the code written in the dna chain. This is a bit like the RNA version of evolution where RNA came before DNA. they all suffer from chicken & egg problem in different ways.

There is a huge order of magnitude between any crystal like structure and the nano machines of the "simplest" bacteria.

We see examples of this kind of symbiosis in our natural world, where one creature has taken up a residence inside another and provides benefits to the host.

This sentence is a bad example of using something which at the macro level to describe at the micro level which is/(was?) already self sustaining but now can(must?) use a parasite to provide the functionality. It would of been something which already worked and self replication. The lipid enclosed structure might be self organizing but it will not be self replicating. E.g. Virus,

Originally it most likely worked like a colony using the lipids as substrate to build on and for protection rather than replicating the wall of the cell itself.

Again assumptions here is that only the thing which makes the self replicating structure and the lipids are present in the chemical soup.
Please tell me what this self replicating structure or group of structures are?
If it was a group of independent structures, that would make it even more amazing.

The nucleus, and other internal cell structures and things like viruses are coated with a lipid membrane lending credence to this idea.

I understand the point you raise here, But here is a problem to help demonstrate the complexity jump from highly ordered (even simple artificial self replicating) systems to fully functioning software (DNA) driven machines running factories for assembling it's own parts. How does a crystal like structure produce it's own cell wall? This is many order of magnitudes more complex between these "systems".

Viruses require living cells to replicate by tricking the cell wall to get access, then injected it's source code into the nucleus to be processed by the RNA factory to pump out more viruses. Without the RNA factories within the cell you can not replicate the virus. The virus being much more complicated that any highly orded crystal structure, this would not give credence to your idea of a simple self replicate which is missing all it's internal parts can then replicate all these other components.

IMO it's pushing beggars belief that any crystal like structure holding onto/wrapped inside a lipid could somehow recreate not only itself but the lipid it's on without replicating machinery, without error correcting machines which in any living cell would need or it dies, that this "cell" can do that despite of all the odd and chemistry and perform this is not the "simple" solution. for over 50yrs chemists have been trying to replicate the cell and they can't.

Your arguments that chemicals naturally move towards a lower state assume that there is no external introduction of energy. But there is a huge external energy source, the sun. This is the same as the argument that the second law of thermodynamics forbids evolution. It fails because the earth is not a closed system.

Maybe I could of explain that better, ... read this link...
from http://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics

Open systems still have a tendency to disorder. There are special cases where local order can increase at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. One case is crystallization, covered in Question 2 below. The other case is programmed machinery, that directs energy into maintaining and increasing complexity, at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Living things have such energy-converting machinery to make the complex structures of life.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed.

An example of a low state would be if I poured blue ink into a bath tab. At the time I poured it into the bath that was when it was at it's most highly order state (it was all together), but as more time goes by it will continue to be more disorded in the tub and disperse. Applying Light or heat (or electricity i assume) will not make the ink group back together into a corner of the tub. This is the same for living systems, the amino acids will disorder down to an equilibiram with the enviroment, Applying heat/energy into the system will only make the decay faster. It doesn't reverse the process. Heat makes chemical reactions faster, so the open system argument doesn't give credit to the evol idea.

Things didn't just start with dna and rna, we had precursors. Its likely the first replicators were literally just chains of acids.

Ah, so your in the camp that the first cell had self replicating machinery programmed by acid chains? What read the DNA? what assemble/folder the chains into 3d shapes?
Quick google:


The simplest possible cell, according to recent theoretical analysis, would need a bare minimum of 256 genes coding for the required enzymes, which are long polypeptides. And it is doubtful whether such a hypothetical organism could survive, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its environment.

How complex are you willing to argue this chain of acids be?

We know that amino acids even exist in space so they were here already anyway and didn't need to be created.

You do not need to argue that amino acids can not be naturally created (or "deposited" from space because evolutionists love extremely absurd ideas).

The problem is not in there being amino acids about, that is a straw-man argument to the creationist position.
The argument is the information contained in the assembly of the parts which make the whole of the host. All cells are made not just of materials but of information. We all have encoded in us detail instructions telling how the cell to function and the host as a whole to live. These instructions are incredibly complex and speaks volumes that an intelligence designed the (original) system. There are no known processes in nature that can generate information with the exception of intelligence.

"obT e or ont ot eb", That sentence doesn't make sense nor will it ever because there is no decoding of the sequence of the letters to make any sense. So again it is with the acids, you can not just string together acids together and get life.
You need the hardware to start off with to handling the processing of the instructions.
You need the instructions to make sense, putting letters together do not cut it.
You need a protective wall to protect the inner core of the cell
You need a power system to replace the ATP synthase to provide power to the cell. ATP is required for all life. It's the basic of currency for power. http://creation.com/design-in-living-organisms-motors-atp-synthase
You need a code detecting system to check for errors.
You need a code repairing system to repair the error before the cell is completely destroyed.

  How many more systems I dont know about required for a functioning self replicating system that wont just be dead?

Let me throw another complication for fun :-) All the proteins in the cell must either be left or right handed. if the dan chain contains both the chain is then terminated. That complication alone makes the chain 50/50 chance in survival to 2 proteins encoded in it. 3 proteins long it's 1/4, with just 64 proteins string to together it's 1/18446744073709551616.

Mutations are random, they may be good or bad. 99.999% of the time they are gonna be bad, but there has been billions of years of chances.

This is the playing to chance game. Chance can not produce something which can not happen.
read this http://creation.com/cheating-with-chance

If mutations don't cause enhancement then how do you explain bacterial resistance?

This is a common strawman argument, let me turn it around for you to answer after I give this fact.
Mutations can break functional structures. A broken functional structure can provide a beneficial effect to the host. E.g.
    * Some people with Meleria are immune because of a broken geane but there children suffer
    * Theres a broken wing bug in a windy island off Italy and because it can't fly it doesn't get blown off the island like it's mainland cousins.
    * White Humans can drink milk (more than asians) past the age of 3 because a gene is broken.
    * the bacteria which can now process citrus acid in an oxygen environment.
I've heard there are over 10,000 known mutations in humans that causes blood diseases, cancers, tumors, liver failures, etc... but only a handful of known mutations which causes beneficial effects, ALL OF THEM involved breaking a working functional structure.

Why are there no observed "evolution" of bacteria gaining information which was not present in the host?

That requires beneficial mutations.

Mutations can be good for the host, but it all observed occurances have not shown evolution, just the oopposite of things breaking down.

Also what about the example of the bacteria we evolved to process citrus by exposing them to an environment full of citrate and low in their natural food source.

Googling show this link about it, it supports my earlier statement of devolution being good to the host.
This is a serious misstatement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways that an information loss can confer resistance, as already discussed. We have also pointed out in various ways how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise through loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations) .
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-5-argument-some-mutations-are-beneficial :-) The bacteria in the lab doesn't show evolution. http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli
    in fact a whole list of items are here http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers for you to read.

basically something changing or damaging itself doesn't show evolution.
Things changing is not an argument a creationist make, mutations & NS already explains that

What about how European humans have a mutation that makes them resistant to aids

Please show where the new information is? or is it something that has changed or damaged like usual?

, because of the black death forcing a little bit of evolution on us.

seems like you are talking about natural selection, not evolution. but you would probably say that anything that changes is evolution.

The same resistance to black death happens to also apply to the aids virus.

Natural selection and mutations. (Thoses humans havn't gain a new chemical signaling process, or a new type of kidney organ, it would be a change in the sturture of what ever the aids attacks, too lazy to look it up at the moment..)

Without evolution there is no mechanism to explain this,

Natural Selection and mutations explains all that above there.
Evolution is not observed unless there is new information being specified. Has a new organ appeared? A new chemical signaling system appear? no.
I defined evolution as "Goo to You via the Zoo" (increase in information), not "Anything changes" (things change and mutate).

or genetic diseases for example. How do you explain hereditary characteristics without passing information from previous generation to offspring.

Basic genetics. As shown in tests for over 400 years. That is basic observation science. proven & tested. We rely on science to make the point that evolution is not observed.

If you accept that as fact, then your already doing evolution,

I disagree, evolution is trying to take the credit for mutations and natural selection and then magically adding to it to produce the goo to you via the zoo.

all that's missing is the random mutations.

You talk about selling me the bits of the car dissembled. But this is assuming the first cell is a current modern cell. It certainly was not. It can be vastly more simple.

How simple is it, It will still need to obey the laws of physics. DNA is very easily destroyed. We all have machines constantly repairing them. The simplist known cell is vastly complex at 512 genes with a theorical cell of 256 genes is basically too weak to survive and need life support.

You say evolution is a religion in itself, which depending on how you are taking the statement could be considered true. Scientists such as myself do tend to "believe" things that we can't see, but are valid and logical extrapolations.

Please be aware of the assumptions before you claim something is "logical". The possibly of the simplist life is astronomical!.
Even non-creationists (e.g. the mathematician and cosmologist, Sir Fred Hoyle) put the probability for the formation of the most basic of cells by natural processes at (at best) 1 in 10^40,000 - that’s a number one with 40,000 zeros after it! Even this assumes all the ingredients are present, which is impossible!

However the major difference is, if you produce some clear evidence that evolution doesn't exist, scientists will change their minds straight away.

Lol, read the Q and A of creation.com, read up and you will find out that that wont happen.

Your examples of scientists getting things wrong such as junk dna and vestigial organs are great examples of where scientists were wrong but corrected themselves.

Of course the evolution theory still remains intact.

If you could show me true evidence against evolution id change my mind in a second. A really advanced creature appearing in the fossil record at the time of vastly more primitive life would be a great one. But we never see anything like that.

The problem when it comes to pointing out such an record is that the record is then rewritten to match what is found. An example:
On Vancouver Island, just off the west coast of Canada, in the late 1990s, a paleontologist found a sponge, which he called Nucha vancouverensis, claiming it was a new species.4,5 It was buried in rocks classified on the geologic column as Upper Triassic, which are supposedly some 220 million years old. Surprisingly, this sponge is virtually identical to one previously found in western New South Wales, Australia, named Nucha naucum, from Middle Cambrian rocks, supposedly 520 million years old.6 But why wasn’t it found in any strata from those 300 million intervening years? The Nucha from Vancouver has greatly extended the range for this particular fossil upward in the geological column
Another example is the discovery of a fossilized cells in north-west Scotland has forced a dramatic rewrite of the supposed evolutionary history of life on Earth. Thats because the fossil were said to have lived in fresh water lakes and were 'dated' as being one billion years old. That is in stark contrast to previous claims that life didn't begin it's landward migration from it's evolutionary starting point in the oceans until half a billion years ago. See: Earth's earliest non-marine eukayotes, Nature 473(7348):505-509, 2011

  Another:By analyzing rocks for organic molecules, researchers have said that eukaryote cells (containing a nucleus and other complex structures) originated 2.7 billion years ago in the Upper Archean, in the Precambrian.14,15 That’s one billion years earlier than previously thought. This raises the question, “Where are the remains of all the billions of organisms with eukaryote cells that lived between 2.7 billion years ago and the time of the Cambrian Big Bang?”
14,15 is Brocks, J., Logan, G., Buick, R. and Summons, R., Archean molecular fossils and the early rise of eukaryotes, Science 285(5430):1033–1036, 1999

Of course i could try to show other examples but I am not placing creatures in a evolutionary time scale. No matter what is found the story is changed to meet the facts.
Now lets talk about living fossils, fossils of creatures that have died "millions" of years ago which are exactly the same as current creatures. e.g. ostracode crustacean (prawns, 450,000,000 without any changes, Coelacanth (believed extinct for 65,000,000 years until discovered in 1938 when it was fished up.)
Now I assume you are under the impression that fossilization take "millions" of years do you, So I take my hat off to you for believing that. :-P
Since we dont have living dinosaurs walking about (if you dont count tuataras back in my home country NZ), would you take a fossil of a T Rex (in Montana,US) that is not minerilsed with red blood cells and stretchy blood veins as evidence against the evolution pragram. The c14 dates show an age of 35,000yr, (I could argue about the dating game later if you want), which clearly shows dinosaurs did not die out 65Myrs ago. In fact if you want pictures of these things in art:
On the tomb of Bishop Richard Bell (1410–1496) at Carlisle Cathedral (UK), brass engravings depict creatures that any 21st century child would innocently identify as well-known sauropod dinosaurs—those with long necks and tails. They appear to be engaged in a fight with their necks (as is also typical of giraffe behaviour) or perhaps courting displays, also familiar within the animal kingdom. See Bishop Bell's brass behemoths!

I have a book containing a picture of an early Mesopotamian cylinder seal and it's image it makes when pressed against clay. it's a picture of 2 long neck dinos wraped around each other.
Heres some text in my book: "The first century naturalist Pliny the Elder recorded that dragons of Ethiopia were often seen 'twisted and interlaced together', *16 = PLiny the Elder, The natural history, translated by Bostock, J., vol II, Book Viii, Chapter 13; www.perseus.tufts.edu
The bible talks several times about "dragons", and describes 2 dinosaurs, one is the behemoth (maybe what we call Brachiosaurus), the other is fire breathing sea dragon called the leviathan.

There is a noble prize out there waiting for the person who can disprove evolution and come up with a better model.

1Million if you can prove abiogeneses http://www.e-n.org.uk/p-4163-One-million-dollars-to-prove-life-could-arise-without-God.htm
It's a long standing prize.

The difference is that religious people will preform incredible levels of mental gymnastics of the kind you are preforming to maintain their cognitive dissonance.

I can claim the same for athiests with evolution, just calculate the odd of anything by chance remotly and you find out why I say beggar's belief is required to believe evolution.

I cant fathom how you learned all this stuff, but just jump to magic as the answer when we hit a gap in our knowledge instead of trying to extrapolate a hypothesis.

I try to not claim magic "it evolved by itself". When you look at a car you see that it was intelligently designed, how much so for someone much more complex that a car is. Any car manufacture would love to have the level of techonology required to make a cell. because still to this day a sciencist can not even hope to replicate a cell with artifical means, how will they do it with "natural" means.

Basically I should sum up this post as saying it requires an awesome amount to believe that chemicals can form in the right manner without destorying themselves and them manage to improve themselves despite no observation evidence to show this can happen.

Instead I take the view of a eye witness account from the creator of the cell in the first place, instead of manufacturing details out of thin air, but I will try to use current science to see how it was done and changes over time. But I will always view "science" as man's limited attempt to try to understand everything and not be taken as truth, because you see how I can point to the flaws in evolution over and over, I just dont blindly believe anything thrown at me.

If you want to hear about the dating game, like how do you get billions of years when the earth is ~6000 years old(* according to the bible) then I can give you some information regarding the failures of radioisotope dating in action. Using events that happen in recorded history 30yrs ago, 60 years ago & 200 years ago (events in New Zealand, and US).

But basically this is where we disagree, I take a scientific approach to history and I dont fall into the lies that evolution requires us to take. I hope I entertained you in learning what a creationist views are and how we see the world and the evidence (I wanted to talk about radioisotape dating, hint hint). If you can point to any mistakes I made in the post, then please let me know.

(I love saying this)
Best regards and God bless you. :-)

Comment: Re:Phewww.... (Score -1) 1319

by Obble (#38253408) Attached to: Muslim Medical Students Boycott Darwin Lectures

I will try and debate with you, but from previous experience I'm pretty sure what will happen. It will get to a point where I will say, that doesn't exist any more, or that evolved away and we don't see it, and you'll say aha!, so you don't know it all, it was clearly god. :p

Yeah, most likly something like that will happen. I can assume neither one of us will change our minds/opinions on the subject matter. But I will continue because like a parable "Iron sharpens iron", with out someone (with knowledge) attacking what I "believe" I would find it more difficult to expand my mind for more understanding and knowledge. I find that when someone attacks what I believe I have motivation to defend it and therefor learn new things. (e.g. I will have to read up on Lipids)

But this disregards the fact that we don't need to know all the answers, we just need to use the simplest conclusion by extrapolating from known data.

Well thats not necessarily a correct methodology, but I am just being a bit pedantic.

And god is not a simple conclusion because then we are just asking who created god.

Actually I always hear the opposite complain when "God" is "used to explain everything". Hence the "simple" solution.
To the argument of who created God:
  As a basic formula of cause and effect, (cause leads to effect), for the universe to exist it must have a cause. Trying to invoke a physical force, e.g. energy or any type of matter will not do for what then created that?. For the universe to be created you will need something/(someone) to be the cause for the effect. An example of God's not being part of space/time is his ability to tell the future. Only when you are outside the universe (s/t) can you do that. So when it comes to the big bang, the theory leads to strings then to membranes, all of which has no physical evidence and still leads to the question what created the strings/ membranes and all the energy required therein as energy can not be created or destroyed.

Finally as to who created God, I dont know if that question makes sence because you are then trying to apply our time view onto someone who doesn't exist in that time view/space. Hence the question being N/A.
Oh please dont try to say quantum fluctuation of virtual particles as that is one big cop out of an answer. (i.e. what created the energy again)

I have studied some biochemistry in university, I know how complex a modern cell is. The first cell could easily have been a simple replicator inside a lipid membrane.

Please define what "simple" is when it comes to replicators. Having a crystal like sturture doesn't produce the machinery to replicate, it can self assemble into a organised shape predestined by it's chemical properties. The simplest self replicating thing I personally know of is an artificial self replicating hex like structure that was on slashdot about 2 months ago, which could replicate by heating the solution then cooling it down again.

The replication from organic things comes from it's dna chain which it's assembly it not related to it chemical properties. For example the sentence: "To be or not to be", does not make any sense, all it is, is a collection of symbols stringed together, the shape of the letters give not relevance to the next symbol in the sentence nor to its ultimate meaning. It's only when a decoder it used (English) can we understand the sentence and get information out of it. Hence any "simple" replication structure you are thinking of would be a crystal structure which can have order by not information, all they will ever be is crystal like in structure.

Lipids can naturally and spontaneously form cell like enclosures all on their own.

Ok, I believe you on this, (I am ignorant on whats Lipids are) this would be easily testable. (put Lipids together and see them clump together).

The organelles that we see inside the current cell could have been separate entities.

This statement is based on an assumption, you will need to show how functional sub structures can be created and then placed in the correct order and the code then written in the dna chain. This is a bit like the RNA version of evolution where RNA came before DNA. they all suffer from chicken & egg problem in different ways.

We see examples of this kind of symbiosis in our natural world, where one creature has taken up a residence inside another and provides benefits to the host.

This sentence is a bad example of using something which is/(was?) self sustaining but now can(must?) use a parasite to provide the functionality. It would of been something which already worked and self replication. A lipid enclosed structure requires might be self organising but it will not be self replicating.

Originally it most likely worked like a colony using the lipids as substrate to build on and for protection rather than replicating the wall of the cell itself.

Again assumptions here is that only the thing which makes the self replicating structure and the lipids are present in the chemical soup.
Please tell me what this self replicating structure or group of structures are?
If it was a group of independent structures, that would make it even more amazing.

The nucleus, and other internal cell structures and things like viruses are coated with a lipid membrane lending credence to this idea.

Viruses require living bacteria to replicate by tricking the cell wall to get access, then injected it's source code into the nucleus to be processed by the RNA factory to pump out more viruses. Without the RNA factories within the cell you can not replicate the virus. The virus being much more complicated that any orded crystal structure, would not give creadence to your idea of a simple self replicate which is missing all it's internal parts.

Your arguments that chemicals naturally move towards a lower state assume that there is no external introduction of energy. But there is a huge external energy source, the sun. This is the same as the argument that the second law of thermodynamics forbids evolution. It fails because the earth is not a closed system. Things didn't just start with dna and rna, we had precursors. Its likely the first replicators were literally just chains of acids.
  We know that amino acids even exist in space so they were here already anyway and didn't need to be created.

You do not need to argue that amino acids can not be naturally created. (or even need to claim acids from comics etc..) The problem is not in there being amino acids or even whole protiens floating about, thats a strawman argument. The argument is the information contained in the assembly of the parts which make the whole of the host. "obT e or ont ot eb", That sentence doesn't make sense nor will it ever because there is no decoding of the sequence of the letters to make any sense. So again it is with the acids, but the problem here is that even in a pure solution of acids, the chain that will build up will need to be completly right or left handed. When you mix a left and a right the chain terminates. That complication alone makes the chain 50/50 chance in survival to 2 acids long. 3 protiens it's 1/4, with just 64 acids string to together it's 1/18446744073709551616.
There are other considerations like the organisation of the acids to form proteins which actually do the job.

Mutations are random, they may be good or bad. 99.999% of the time they are gonna be bad, but there has been billions of years of chances. If mutations don't cause enhancement then how do you explain bacterial resistance? That requires beneficial mutations. Also what about the example of the bacteria we evolved to process citrus by exposing them to an environment full of citrate and low in their natural food source.

(It's getting late for me so I am getting a bit lazy and drunk and wife is getting angry, so I will paste a couple of hyperlinks instead soon.)
Copy and paste from
This is a serious misstatement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways that an information loss can confer resistance, as already discussed. We have also pointed out in various ways how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise through loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations) .
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-5-argument-some-mutations-are-beneficial :-) The bacteria in the lab doesn't show evolution. http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli
    in fact a whole list of items are here http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers for you to read.

basically something changing or damaging itself doesn't show evolution.

What about how European humans have a mutation that makes them resistant to aids

Please show where the new information is? or is it something that has changed or damaged like usual?

, because of the black death forcing a little bit of evolution on us.

seems like you are talking about natural selection, not evolution. but you would probably say that anything that changes is evolution.

The same resistance to black death happens to also apply to the aids virus.

Natural selection and mutations. (Thoses humans havn't gain a new chemical signaling process, or a new type of kidney organ, it would be a change in the sturture of what ever the aids attacks, too lazy to look it up at the moment..)

Without evolution there is no mechanism to explain this,

Natural Selection and mutations again. They are proven facts. evolution isn't.

or genetic diseases for example. How do you explain hereditary characteristics without passing information from previous generation to offspring.

Basic genetics. shown in tests for over 400 years.

If you accept that as fact, then your already doing evolution,

I disagree, evolution is trying to take the credit for mtuations and natural selection and then magically adding to it to produce the goo to you via the zoo. I will talk more on this in the morning (or you could read my history, I have a habbit of talking about that alot.) basically NS & Mutations work agaist evolution.

all that's missing is the random mutations.

You talk about selling me the bits of the car dissembled. But this is assuming the first cell is a current modern cell. It certainly was not. It can be vastly more simple.

How simple is it, It will still need to obey the laws of physics. DNA is very easily destroyied. We all have machines constantly repAIRING them.

You say evolution is a religion in itself, which depending on how you are taking the statement could be considered true. Scientists such as myself do tend to "believe" things that we can't see, but are valid and logical extrapolations.

Please be aware of the assumptions that you make when comming to your conclusions :-) my wife wants to sleep, sorry I didn't have time to finish this, I will try again tomorrow.

However the major difference is, if you produce some clear evidence that evolution doesn't exist, scientists will change their minds straight away. Your examples of scientists getting things wrong such as junk dna and vestigial organs are great examples of where scientists were wrong but corrected themselves. If you could show me true evidence against evolution id change my mind in a second. A really advanced creature appearing in the fossil record at the time of vastly more primitive life would be a great one. But we never see anything like that. There is a noble prize out there waiting for the person who can disprove evolution and come up with a better model. The difference is that religious people will preform incredible levels of mental gymnastics of the kind you are preforming to maintain their cognitive dissonance. I cant fathom how you learned all this stuff, but just jump to magic as the answer when we hit a gap in our knowledge instead of trying to extrapolate a hypothesis.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...